Posted on 06/08/2011 7:48:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I’m well aware of the long-time FCC interest in broadcast “news,” both radio and tv. “News” is/was considered to be part of the “public interest” requirement for a licensee.
However that traditional FCC mission has absolutely, tetotally (a Dan Ratherism) nothing to do with what journalism schools should or should not teach, tax policy regarding news-gathering, steering of government advertising money, or how many reporters a newspaper chooses to hire.
None, Nada, zip, bupkis.
What this is, is one more attempt by a government agency to insert itself into the big fat middle of something that it has no business at all trying to influence - what is and isn’t news and how it is reported.
This is the Stamp Act.
This is Pope Leo X’s Exsurge Domine, his attempt to silence Martin Luther in 1520.
This is the Licensing of the Press Act of 1662.
This is Josephus Daniel’s attempt to nationalize radio after WW1.
This is “Bloody Mary” Tudor’s burning at the stake of heretics who wrote books she didn’t like.
It is what tyranny has tried to do since the dawn of mankind, and always will - control the distribution of information.
——————What the hell does the FCC have to do with local journalism?-—————
They have to make sure it’s “neutral”.
———————Under what authority?-——————
It’s in the good and plenty clause. :-)
-—————A Federal Study Finds That Local Reporting Has Waned-——————
This headline is beyond orwellian. Local news is a nightmare. They tell only tell you about local court cases, rapes, murders, and other minutae. Now, it’s one thing if a woman gets raped and they didn’t catch the perp. Ok. THAT is news. Same with murder. But a good 50% of what local “news” gets reported isn’t news. It’s fluff.
They don’t tell you how government is attacking your freedoms. They don’t honestly report on world news. They don’t tell you anything at all about the revolutionaries in all of ours’ back yards plotting and scheming against us.(the enemy within)
The FCC has a vested interest in keeping it this way. We americans are breaking free of the media, and that’s not good for the ruling class.
-—————However, you know they’re talking about what they like to call a “positive” right.-—————
What does antirepublicrat think about “positive” rights?
What does Obama(or any other progressive) think about “positive” rights?
I agree.
Our rights haven’t been so precarious since the last progressive era.
True, just don't think it's a new issue, or that it's related to net neutrality. As related to licensing of printers, think of it as a rule that roads must allow any printed materials to be transported upon them as long as the regular toll is paid.
If you're going to use that analogy, then admit the heaviest users of roads pay the most in tolls. In the case across most of the US, the toll is extracted via fuel taxes. More miles traveled = more fuel = more taxes = more tolls.
Ergo, bandwidth users should pay a scalable rate for usage.
First, I don't like the terminology, because it uses the word "negative" to describe rights we hold dear. But to use the terminology, certain "positive" rights do exist. You have the "positive" right to a public trial in the Constitution. On the other hand, such rights can usually be restated the other way, "The government shall not keep the trial proceedings from the public."
This does not equate to, for example, health care. "You have the right to adequate health care" is a socialist type "positive" right. It can't be restated as "the government shall not prevent a person from receiving adequate health care" and still mean the same thing. Public education isn't even a right. It is just something that people from the Founders onwards thought was a good idea.
This is just a generalization though. The issue goes much deeper and could be discussed for months.
Not a problem with net neutrality at all. Use more, pay more, if that's the pricing structure the ISP desires to implement.
Nah. The UN wants control of the Internet handed over to them, the policies, the root DNS, everything. That way the dictatorships that hold much of the power in the UN get to decide that censorship is a good thing, and that people don't need to know what their government is doing. You know China would probably be chairman of the Internet governance board. Remember, this is the country that flat-out told the BBC that they don't block sites, when you can't get the BBC in China because it's blocked ("Sometimes we have trouble accessing them. But that's a different problem."). Rather than freedom spreading from the free Internet into such countries, their censorship will now spread to cover the free Internet, and it won't be called censorship, it'll be called "protecting" us.
Everybody would have access, but nobody would know anything about what their governments are really doing. I'm glad Bush refused to hand over control when he was in office. I can only hope that Obama refuses too.
-——————Ergo, bandwidth users should pay a scalable rate for usage.-—————
I’ve always preferred a scalable rate based on pipe size.
The way it is now is great. Your local ISP may have a 2MB, or 512k, or whatever the base line high speed pipe is. Maybe $20-40/month depending on area and other bundled features.
Their second tier may be 3mb, with the highest being as high as 10 or 20MB. 100MB. Whatever. All of our areas are different.
But if you buy the base tier, your bandwidth usage is limited naturally by the size of the pipe.
People willing to pay for a bigger pipe, naturally, pay a bigger price per month.
The ISPs want to institute mb/gb caps, which is clearly a nonstarter. But people who turn to marxists and say “dear marxists, please save us from the ISPs with your marxist Net Neutrality!” is only going to........ When was the last time you looked at pictures from Tienanmen square?
You don’t really know what Obama(or any other progressive) thinks about “positive” rights, do you?
-——————The UN wants control of the Internet handed over to them, the policies, the root DNS, everything. That way the dictatorships that hold much of the power in the UN get to decide that censorship is a good thing, and that people don’t need to know what their government is doing.—————
How is it that you are perfectly capable of seeing this obvious fact regarding the UN, but the picture that exists with the UN is largely exactly the same regarding the FCC, and you’re 100% incapable of seeing it?
Ideologically, you’re dealing with the exact same people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.